I have a question about possible time controls. Once you have decided how much time to allocate to a round, what is the advantage of having two time controls rather than just a single time control for the whole game? For example, why 30/90, SD/1 instead of Game/150. In the former case you have the potential for more time trouble situations requiring more TD work. Forcing some of the games to move a little faster doesn’t really help you. Since your next round is scheduled six hours later and you’re constrained by the last game to finish anyway.
Is this just tradition? Do the two time controls make it seem like the old days without sudden death time controls?
Thanks,
Mike Regan
I guess it depends on how you feel about the extra time scramble. It increases the chance of errors at a critical point, yet when time control is reached the position may still be at full boil. Personally, I think the extra time check is silly, and I’d rather play g/150. But since I play fast, having an extra chance for my opponent to mess up isn’t so bad. Tournaments organized by the Georgia Chess Association typically use one time control, while events at the Atlanta Chess Center go the other way.
With a secondary time control, you also run the risk of players messing up their clock settings. With many digital clocks, neither you nor the opponent of the clock-setter will see the problem until the game enters the second time control. My vote would be for a single time control.
Brenda Hardesty
Senior TD
Two reasons occur to me. 1) With a single time control, the games are, on the average, going to last longer, since there are a lot of players who will use up the full time allotment, no matter what it is. 2) Ending a game with a sudden-death time scramble, with all that “insufficient losing chances” nonsense, is (in my opinion) a perversion of the game. We’re probably stuck with it, but a necessary evil is not a good. Anything that decreases the likelihood of sudden-death determining the outcome is desirable per se.
That’s why I like time delay clocks. Totally eliminates the “insuffient losing chances” nonsense.
I use Game/150 in place of the old 30/90, SD/1, in order to avoid the complications and disputes of that extra time control.
However, I also use 40/2, SD/1 rather than Game/3. Have never tried Game/3, but am afraid players might not like it because a player with a hopeless position can drag the game out too long. With Game/150 this doesn’t seem to be a significant problem.
Bill Goichberg
I played in an event a while back that had a single time control of 1.5 or 2 hours. My experience was that it is VERY different from playing with two time controls. I disliked it so much that I have made a firm decision never to play in any event that substitutes one time control like this.
– Hal Terrie
Hal,
Can you say what it is about the single time control that you did not like? As a player I think I would like to be in charge of how I use my time rather than have to finish an arbritary number of moves in a specfic time.
As an extreme example would you rather play a Game/180 or 20/60,20/60, SD/1? As a TD, I would prefer to have Game/180. It is easier to set the clocks and I will have very few time troubles to deal with.
Mike
“As a TD…”
Tournaments are not for TDs, they are for the players. That it makes the clocks easier to set is the LAST reason you should prefer a single time control.
As for my experience with a single time control, I have always had trouble with time pressure. I found it almost impossible to manage my time properly when there was no definite number of moves to be made. I just ended up using too much time early on.
I prefer the forced discipline of two controls. If I get in time pressure around move 40, after I reach that control I have a normal amount of time again for the ending. I prefer endings and hate having only a few minutes to study the most profound part of the game.
– Hal Terrie
Consider the players, not the TD. As a player, I dislike the idea of any single time control longer than 2 hours. It’s bad enough when an opponent, in a hopeless position, drags it out for 2 hours rather than resigning. To allow such an opponent an additional 30 or 60 minutes to waste my time is simply going too far.
With two controls, at least the opponent has to move at a reasonable pace until move 30 or 40, at which point his position is likely to be even MORE hopeless, increasing the chances that he will resign.
Bill Smythe
The US Open is 40/2, SD/1 while the Denker is Game/3. It was intriguing to watch the time management patterns of various Denker players who also played in the US Open. My own student and his opponents always managed to get into time pressure at the end of the Game/3 time control but had less trouble with 40/2, SD/1. They would use 5 or 5.5 hours combined to play about 30 moves and then blitz out the rest of the game.
By this example, I would conclude that Game/3 is considerably slower than 40/2, SD/1. In addition to slower, it is also more tiring. Simply put, the average game on the top boards in the Denker went over 5 hours while the top games in the US Open averaged 3-4 hours.
Michael Aigner
I would imagine that the main reason for Game/"x" would be an effort to dumb down the time control, so the players who don't want to try to understand the difference between the rules regarding winning on time (you must have complete scoresheet in the first time control, but not in the second control, even though it's the same game) will still be able to win when they see the "000" flashing on their opponents' clocks, regardless of what move it is. Also, some players set their move counters to flip over to the second time control incorrectly, causing a bit of chaos to occur in their games at move 30 (or 40, in 40/2). With the game dumbed down to one time control, the players will be less likely to mis-set their clocks, or to act out in the tournament room when their claim of a time forfeit win is denied because they were blitzing their opponent.
Steve, is that ‘dumbing down’ more for the benefit of the players or the TD/organizer? 
Interesting…do you think that the Denker games in general might be more competitive than the Open games, in general, leading to a greater usage of time?
It’s funny, but I prefer the single time control for the contrary reason – I think I’m pretty good at time management. 
It’s never bothered me for a win to be spread out over a couple of hours. Though I have to admit some of my opponents have probably not cared for the way I sometimes keep looking for a way out of losing positions. OTOH, sometimes I find one, and it IS my time to use, isn’t it?
The top boards in the Denker featured a tighter rating difference than the US Open. Still, the same kids who played in the Denker moved faster in regular 40/2 time controls. They are simply trained to use ALL of their clock, especially in a sharp position. They’re also (over-)confident in their ability to play blitz if they have to at the end of six hours of play. I must admit I’ve never seen so many games around move 25 or 30 after five hours!
G/150 is slower than 40/2, SD/1.
Michael Aigner
How about game/90 with a 30-second increment? (I’m talking cumulative addback, also known as Fischer or FIDE, not the non-cumulative delay.)
Of course, you’d have to make sure everybody has increment-capable clocks, or have a backup plan (such as 40/90, SD/60) for those who do not.
Bill Smythe